On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:48:42 -0800 (PST)
Doug Barton <DougB at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > Sorry, but I can't give you a number. But I think there is no
> > "large percentage of our userbase" using it. Even some active FreeBSD
> > user are on the bacula mailing list.
>> Ok, then I like the idea of the port itself adding some lines to
> /etc/services to accomodate this. As for the argument that they would
> get deleted by (improper decisions made while using) mergemaster, it
> would be up to the port author to make it clear ... something like:
[example]
> That way the user has a fighting chance of making the right mergemaster
> decision, and the port has an easy way to delete those lines when its
> uninstalled.
What about unattended installs, or what if bacula is a dependency of
another port. Typically I don't sit in front of the build and wait for
it to finish. I do something else instead. So the chance of missing such
lines is high.
> There is precedent for ports writing stuff in /etc (/etc/shells for
> one),, and since this is a case that's worth pursuing (as is saned), I
> think it's definitely worth the "cost" of "polluting" the base with
> ports stuff.
/etc/shells is a different beast. People which use mergemaster and have
another shell installed know about it. I'm not against changing files in
/etc, but the user should know about it (POLA).
What about a wrapper script which greps for bacula in /etc/services and
starts the original bacula executable if it finds an entry and moans if
not? It could tell the use to add the lines. And perhaps add a
"addservice" target to the port makefile, which does it for the user if
he want it (like those MTA makefiles which modify /etc/mail/mailer.conf
upon request) and let the wrapper script explain how to use it ("make
addservice").
Bye,
Alexander.
--
I will be available to get hired in April 2004.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7